CVE-2024-54400
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in meloniq AppMaps appmaps allows Stored XSS.This issue affects AppMaps: from n/a through <= 1.1.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceA CSRF vulnerability in AppMaps <= 1.1 allows attackers to inject malicious scripts that get stored in the application, leading to stored XSS when other users view the compromised content.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify AppMaps installation and versionCheck for the AppMaps package/module in your application dependencies (e.g., package.json, pom.xml, requirements.txt, Gemfile) or inspect the installed version via CLI: npm list appmaps, pip show appmaps, or similar package manager commandAffected if AppMaps version is 1.1 or lower
-
Verify user-generated content storage is enabledReview application configuration files and database schema to determine if the application stores user-submitted content that can be rendered to other users (e.g., comments, profiles, descriptions, metadata fields)Affected if The application stores and displays user-generated content to other users without sanitization
-
Inspect state-changing operations for CSRF protectionExamine the application's source code for form submissions or API endpoints that modify state (create/update/delete operations). Check if each includes anti-CSRF tokens or validates the Origin/Referer headers. Use browser dev tools to inspect request headers on state-changing actionsAffected if State-changing operations lack anti-CSRF token validation or Origin/Referer header checks
-
Check SameSite cookie configurationInspect the application's cookie settings for session and authentication cookies. Look for SameSite attribute in Set-Cookie headers or cookie configuration (e.g., SameSite=Lax, SameSite=Secure). Use browser dev tools or analyze HTTP responsesAffected if Cookies are missing SameSite attribute or set to SameSite=None without Secure flag, enabling cross-site cookie transmission
Your environment is affected if AppMaps version 1.1 or lower is installed AND your application stores user-generated content that can be viewed by other users, AND state-changing operations lack CSRF protection or cookies lack proper SameSite configuration.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement anti-CSRF tokens for state-changing operations and configure SameSite cookie attributes to prevent cross-site request forgery attacks.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-54400 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-54400 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data